Dumbest Inventions EVER

We bought an SUV because my wife can get in and out of it easier than a sedan, and son #1 lives on a, well hobby farm with a rough dirt track access that she didn't feel comfortable driving up.
Then of course miss then 18 bought a horse and the SUV came in handy for towing a float.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Jonathan_S wrote:

munroburton wrote:The reason SUVs win out over station wagons, if any, is probably to do with carrying small children.

Parents with non-SUVs have to bend down or over to strap their child into the rear seats. With SUVs, they don't - the seats are at waist height. Easier to pop the little ones in, especially if also carrying a bag or two.

Of course, there's nothing like an elevated driving position to give one a sense of unwarranted superiority. You are after all, literally sitting above other people. Peeking down into other, perhaps less worthy, cars.

As for the worst invention ever - I can't decide today whether it's the US electoral college or that fancy dish where puréed peas are reconstituted into small green spheres.

Well there was also the other reason which is that they hit different buckets in a car maker's CAFE fuel efficiency standards.
Station wagons got killed by minivans because when the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard got implemented in the mid 70s station wagons were considered cars and minivans were considered light trucks. Light trucks had more lenient fuel efficiency standards, so even though minivans might have equal or worse gas mileage as a station wagon that didn't penalize the car maker like the station wagon's mileage did.

I have more trouble figuring out why SUVs took over so much of the minivan market, since both have the higher seating position you mention as convenient for strapping in kids, but the minivan has a lower center of gravity (more stable) and is usually less expensive and more fuel efficient than an SUV.

Minivans suck in a cross breeze.
Especially the 14 seater Toyota we drive.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Station wagons vs minivans/SUVs?

NO CONTEST!

I'd prefer a station wagon. Why? Because minivans/SUVs don't have the last row of seating facing backward!

Any time a group of kids got together, and the ride was a station wagon, there would be a MAJOR contest for which 3 would get the "tail gunner's positions", lol!

MAD-4A wrote:Well, it's called but-dialing, and it far pre-dates the 'Smart' Phone. don't put it in your back pocket. The only mobile phone that can't but-dial is (most) flip phones (that's their point) but they have a flimsy hinge purposely designed to break, so you have to buy a new one.

My "flip phone" is now over 10 years old, only problem is i finally need to replace the battery for the first time, something which is not the easiest thing to do with a decade old phone that was made by a company that no longer exists(Sony-Ericsson W300i).

(hinge has survived some pretty severe abuse as well(like a certain stupid person sitting down heavily on it while it´s open and on a sofa), so definitely not "made to break")

Actually, as the name implies, "sports"-(4x4 truck) "Utility" - (work van) "Vehicle", they were targeted toward men, a "work van" you can take out on the weekend and "play" in. the female market was an unexpected effect the companies took advantage of, as to the side-doors on MV - that is just a design/engineering issue which could easily be replaced by regular rear doors, though I hate being stuck behind vans also, at-least I can accept that they have a purpose and not just some jerk with "size" issues.

The name thing is interesting, because some people read that "SUV" as "Suburban Vehicle" (or "Surburban Utility Vehicle" as a straight out designation rather than an acronym), which at least a lot of the time feels at least as, or even a lot more correct than the "sports utility vehicle" designation.

Either way, no it certainly wasn´t "aimed at women", like you said, that became a bonus extra.
And considering how in my experience, it´s the guys who has them the most often...

I brought up the SUV point, am now realising that it means different things to different people. The definition here isn't exact, but we have "real" 4WDs like Toyota Landcruisers, Nissan Patrols, or Land Rovers (essential in the outback, but hopeless in town). Then we have "hairdresser or plastic" 4WDs like Toyota RAVs, Honda HRVs, or BMW X5s (don't do the role of off road or on road particularly well).
After that we come to the SUV which is usually a 2WD version of the "hairdresser" 4WD, and basically it is a minivan with pretentions.
I personally object to the Sports Utility Vehicle title, having owned several real sports cars, and utilities (like a pick up truck), and question their value as vehicles.
My real world beef is that I dislike sharing the road with vehicles that block my view and take further to stop. I know that trucks and buses do as well, but they have to be like that.

Daryl wrote:After that we come to the SUV which is usually a 2WD version of the "hairdresser" 4WD, and basically it is a minivan with pretentions.

And those are the COMMON ones as long as you look as towns and cities. And i expect that´s the reason someone came up with the alternative "Suburban Utility Vehicle" moniker to differentiate with. But most who use a designation just defaults to "SUV" anyway, so the difference just disappears without a trace.

Face it, minivan and SUVs has pretty much become synonymous unless you dig into the details a LOT more than is common.

Daryl wrote:... My real world beef is that I dislike sharing the road with vehicles that block my view and take further to stop. I know that trucks and buses do as well, but they have to be like that.

Exactly, and about 2 hours to accelerate across the intersection from a red light! (judging from my internal sense of time) At-least stay out of the left lane. The HOV lanes should be changed from "car-pool - 2 or more people to use" to "Passenger vehicle only" lanes, you must be in a car or station wagon (or motorcycle), no trucks or "utility" vehicles allowed. that would discourage so many slow-performing gas-guzzling view-blocking monstrosities flooding the roads. course those "Smart-Cars" are ugly, and have less 'utility' than a motorcycle with a basket on it. But I don't know if the qualify as 'Dumb Invention' they just need better designs.

MAD-4A wrote:course those "Smart-Cars" are ugly, and have less 'utility' than a motorcycle with a basket on it. But I don't know if the qualify as 'Dumb Invention' they just need better designs.

The downside with trying to optimise ability while minimising weight, air resistance and all stuff like that.
AND, still meet safety and traffic regulations.

Dumbest inventions bought by the dumbest of buyers:

In my mind that would be a person who lives over 8 hours away from the nearest elevation change (up or down) and buys a 4x4 monster vehicle (the dumb invention bought by city folks)that gets less than 15 MPG and takes up two parking places in the flatland city they live in.

In the spirit of the Holiday:

Turducken.